| ▲ | cors-fls 2 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
While the persons mentionned in the articles are indubitably most of the most well-informed people in the world. They are also the most likely to have internalized that their work is leading to superhuman intelligence/AGI. But is it really realistic ? So they have a strong bias towards imagining the most catastrophic scenario. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Sharlin 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
There have been extremely smart people worried about this exact scenario for 20 years or more. Nothing about this is new. In any case, what's the probability at which a possible extinction event becomes a risk worth taking? Even if there's just a 1% likelihood of current research bringing about a superintelligent AGI, and just a 1% likelihood of that AGI causing an existential catastrophe, no rational person should accept the risk, unless it was clear that not accepting it would yield an even worse outcome. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | PowerElectronix 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
People working for those companies have either drank the koolaid or have equity enough to play along until they can cash out. I imagine saying you're developing skynet is better than saying you are developing a very cool, extremely expensive to run chatbot that can do math and code. | |||||||||||||||||||||||